Tag Archives: FARC

The Importance of Ratifying Free Trade Agreements

By Nicole M. Ferrand










The Colombian Army during assists in anti-drug operations


For some time now, media outlets in Latin America and the US have been closely monitoring the negotiations for an Andean Free Trade agreement involving Colombia, Peru, and the United States. Lima’s agreement was signed on April 12, 2006 and the Peruvian Congress ratified it on June 28 2006. Bogota signed the FTA on November 22, 2006. The US Congress still needs to ratify both of them.


 


Over the course of many years, the United States has been trying to get the cooperation of Colombia and Peru to combat narcotics trafficking and the trade agreements were promised as a sign of recognition for their success on this front. No one can deny Uribe’s success since he has enacted tough policies to confront not only drug-trafficking but also the terrorist group inside Colombia, known as the FARC which is greatly responsible for the narcotic trafficking problem in South America. Since July, 2006, after Alan Garcia was elected in Peru, defeating Hugo Chavez’s puppet, Ollanta Humala, the country quickly aligned itself with the United States and has also made progress in their fight against drugs.


 


[More]


 


The Colombian and Peruvian FTA’s must be approved by the House Ways and Means and Senate Finance committees before they can be considered by the full Congress. The midterm U.S. elections that gave the Democrats control of Congress in January 2007, have delayed the much anticipated ratifications.


 


Andean Nations signed the Andean Trade Preference and Drug Eradication Act (ATPDEA), which replaced the expired Andean Trade Preferences Act (ATPA). The ATPDEA was enacted by President Bush on August 6th 2002, granting Bolivia , Colombia , Ecuador and Peru preferential tariff treatment for specific products. It expired on December 31st 2006 and was renewed again for 6 months. Bogota and Lima are eager to ratify the FTA’s with the US since the ATPDEA, although a step forward, still forces exporters to cover the full costs of the tariffs which, in many cases, is a much too heavy burden for some businesses.  


 


A trade-skeptic Democratic-controlled Congress has announced that the free-trade agreements with the United States will need “substantive adjustments” to secure Congressional approval since many Democrats have objections over labor rights . Deputy U.S. Trade Representative John K. Veroneau made this announcement on January 18, 2007 . [1]


Pablo Bachelet makes an excellent point in a piece published in The Miami Herald this week. In the article it is argued that, “changing the texts of the agreements would be hard to do even if the Bush administration wanted to, officials and trade experts say. The language of the Peru and Colombian pacts took months of strenuous negotiations and Peru ‘s Congress has already ratified its agreement with the United States . Plus, U.S. law stipulates that the United States can only demand that countries implement their own labor laws, whereas Democrats want the agreements to include what they call “core International Labor Organization standards” in the texts themselves.” Gretchen Hamel, a representative of the Bush administration, quickly came out to clarify that the adjustments could be made through “some binding instrument and it is not necessary to reopen the text of the agreement.” [2]


“Democrats, backed by U.S. labor unions, have long complained that the free trade deals being negotiated by the administration did not include enough protections for American workers. They said that because of this, the U.S. workers’ jobs would be jeopardized by competition from low-wage countries with lax labor laws.” [3]






[1] Changes: likely in Peru , Colombia free-trade pacts. Jan. 18, 2007. The Miami Herald. By Pablo Bachelet.



[2] Changes: likely in Peru , Colombia free-trade pacts. Jan. 18, 2007. The Miami Herald. By Pablo Bachelet.



[3] U.S. Will Re-Negotiate Free Trade Deals. January 17, 2007. The Associated Press. By Martin Crutsinger.

The importance of the Colombia FTA

For some time now, media outlets in Latin America and the US have been closely monitoring the negotiations for an Andean Free Trade agreement involving Colombia , Peru and the United States . Lima ‘s agreement was signed on April 12, 2006 and the Peruvian Congress ratified it on June 28 2006. Bogota signed the FTA on November 22, 2006 . The US Congress still needs to ratify both of them.

Over the course of many years, the United States has been trying to get the cooperation of Colombia and Peru to combat narcotics trafficking and the trade agreements were promised as a sign of recognition for their success on this front. No one can deny Uribe’s success since he has enacted tough policies to confront not only drug-trafficking but also the terrorist group inside Colombia , known as the FARC which is greatly responsible for the narcotic trafficking problem in South America . Since July, 2006, after Alan Garcia was elected in Peru , defeating Hugo Chavez’s puppet, Ollanta Humala, the country quickly aligned itself with the United States and has also made progress in their fight against drugs.

NEWS:

  • Columbian counter-narcotics efforts to serve as model for Afghanistan.
  • Chavez and energy shortages major threats to Latin America.
  • Ecuador Defense Minister killed in crash.  Ecuador to investiage fatal crash.
  • Opposition to Chavez protests in Venezuela.  Venezuela likely to return to Andean Community of Nations.  Venezuela and Brazil cooperate to build ships.  Chavez’s policies create inflation in Venezuela.  Venezuela’s arms purchases top China, Iran, Pakistan.  Russia, Venezuela sign natural gas agreement.  Venezuelan army to buld road in Nicaragua.  Venezuela, Cuba sign new economics accords.
  • Bolivia’s Morales replaces 16 cabinet members.  Morales has a former terrorist as a principal advisor.  Bolivia: ETA ties.  Morales backs off on key referendum.  Morales submits tax "reforms" to Congress.
  • Panamanian ex-dictator to be released soon.
  • Mexico’s Calderon proposes cap on government salaries.  Mexico praised over extradition.
  • UN court abstains on Argentina-Uruguay dispute.  Argentina, Brazil file WTO complaint against U.S. corn subsidies.
  • Cuban militany enters plea in Texas.
  • Guatemala voters undecided.
  • El Salvador remittances rose 17% in 2006.

View Full Report Here (PDF)

For any questions, comments, or for those interested in receiving this report in the future or seeking to have their email removed from our mailing list please contact us at our new e-mail address: mengesproject@centerforsecuritypolicy.org. If you have news stories that you think might be useful for future editions of this report please send them, with a link to the original website, to the same e-mail address. If you wish to contribute with an article, please send it to the same address, with your name and place of work or study.

A blow to anti-drug policy

In a recent interview in the Argentinean magazine "Debate", Gabriel Guerra Mondragon, an advisor to Hillary Clinton on Hispanic and Latin American affairs and a former US Ambassador to Chile shockingly pointed out that "all anti-American statements we hear from (Bolivian President) Evo Morales and (Venezuelan President) Hugo Chavez are not against the US properly speaking but against Bush. This (anti-Americanism) can be reverted if a democrat is elected President"

Without taking a political stand for or against Hillary Clinton, what is highly distressing is the lack of awareness, and the ignorance displayed by senior advisors to American presidential candidates. I have reasons to believe that this type of ignorance and naiveté transcends an obscure political advisor and is far more widespread among American political operatives and public officials (probably on both sides of aisle) than one may think. As we repeatedly pointed out at the Center for Security Policy, the Chavez phenomenon is not a political regime that limits itself to Venezuela. Chavez sees himself as a revolutionary and internationalist like any other previous revolution be it the French, the Russian or the Islamic revolution. Chavez’s first international front is his own region, namely Latin America. In this region the Chavez agenda is enjoying one of the most successful times. The election of Evo Morales as President of Bolivia late in 2005 and the election of Rafael Correa as President of Ecuador late last year have accelerated the formation of a new Latin American axis which might have serious repercussions for the region in general and also for the United States.

After their respective election victories both Morales and Correa rushed to visit Hugo Chavez, the new Pope of Latin America’s neo-populism. They both ran on Chavista ideology which among other things included criticism of existing representative institutions, hostility to neo-liberal and free trade policies, a harsh anti-Americanism, and, a bitter opposition to US drug polices in the Andes region. After being elected, Chavez seems to be their natural mentor. For example, both Correa and Morales rushed to call for a constituent assembly which basically means to dismantle the current legislative power in favor of a popularly elected assembly which would elect a new legislature which will end up being nothing but an extension of the executive power.

Chavez’s activism extends to foreign policy, as well. Early in 2006, Evo Morales, after a long weekend meeting with Chavez, decided to nationalize the country’s natural resources by ordering troops to occupy more than 50 gas and oil installations. This enraged the Brazilian and Spanish energy companies operating in Bolivia.

During Christmas week, the president-elect of Ecuador, Rafael Correa (he is taking the oath of office on January 15, 2007) visited Chavez and upon his return tensions between Ecuador and Colombia increased as Ecuador demanded that Colombia stop fumigations on the coca fields that border with Ecuador.

Indeed, the problem of contamination on the Ecuadorian side of the border, resulting from this fumigation has been an ongoing one which will require some sort of solution. However, Correa’s tone, which was echoed by the outgoing Ecuadorian government and enthusiastically supported by Chavez, sounded particularly threatening. Ecuador withdrew its ambassador from Colombia, and under Chavez’s influence Correa cancelled a meeting with Colombian President Alvaro Uribe, despite Uribe’s begging call to meet with him. Uribe offered to travel to Quito to meet with Correa and was refused, as well. The hard exchange of words between the two left a bitter taste, despite Uribe’s offer to consider changing the fumigation method from aerial to manual so as to minimize the contamination.

What is the deeper meaning of this incident?

Alvaro Uribe is the first Colombian President that has succeeded in fulfilling the goals of the program called "Plan Colombia", a Colombian-American-designed and American-funded plan originating in 1998 and aimed at eradicating drug trafficking in the country. As political scientist Eduardo Gamarra correctly points out, until Uribe took the reins of the government the drug industry succeeded in surviving like a chameleon, by transforming itself and readjusting. Uribe’s efforts have been focused on combating all the armed groups that control all facets of illicit drug production in Colombia, particularly the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC). According to Gamarra, Uribe’s democratic security policy is a success as it managed to restore a state presence in areas once controlled by the guerillas or by Para-military forces. These policies also increased Uribe’s popularity as Colombians feel safer today than in the past several decades.

In other words, I would say, whether Correa’s claims regarding fumigations are legitimate or not, they reflect, in my opinion, more than anything an important element of anti-Colombian hostility. This hostility is part of an anti-American hostility as the anti-drug policy is seen by Chavez and his populist associates like Correa, as a violation of their national sovereignty by the Americans.

But there is more to it. Most recently the US Ambassador to Caracas, William Brownfield, asserted that the amount of cocaine traffic through Venezuela has increased particularly since the cooperation between the Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) and Venezuela was suspended five years ago.

According to Carlos Espinoza Fernandez, Chairman of International Relations at San Francisco University in Quito, Ecuador, despite not having huge coca cultivation fields, plays a tremendous role in enabling the passage of drugs from Colombian territory. According to Espinoza the influx of drugs to Ecuador from Colombia reaches 80 tons. It generates income in Ecuador as mixed Colombian and Ecuadorian mobs charge huge amounts for drug re-exportation to their final markets. Espinoza points out that the money made in Ecuador for such mediation is higher than the money made by the cultivation and the processing of the drug. Ecuadorian territory has played an important role in drug trafficking since Uribe’s aggressive interdiction managed to strangle drug trafficking in Colombia. The Ecuadorian Government has not been nearly as efficient as the Colombian one. Yet, Ecuador has managed to better control such trafficking in last several years.

Two things are important in this context concerning Ecuador. First it is likely that under Correa, the Ecuadorian state, like Venezuela now, will no longer exercise control on drug trafficking as the country becomes an area of drug smuggling. It could be worse. Correa may even look at drug trafficking as a source of revenue for the Ecuadorian state (perhaps to himself as well), as drug control is seen as an American interest to the detriment of Ecuadorian national sovereignty. Correa’s repeated insistence to dismantle the American base at Manta which is used to combat drug trafficking, throws even more suspicion on Correa’s intentions. In other words, Chavez and Correa probably see drug trafficking as another source of revenue to be administered by the state, which will enable them to increase their power.

The second important point in this equation is the relation of Rafael Correa to the FARC. Chavez has been a FARC supporter for along time. During his campaign, Correa refused to declare the group a terrorist organization. In their last conversation Uribe urged Correa to acknowledge that FARC is a terrorist group. Correa refused. This is no doubt a very important point. As Correa, like Chavez, embraces the FARC, which is a bloody terrorist organization with connections to Radical Islamic groups, there is a danger that Ecuador, like Venezuela, may become a territory where these guerillas operate uncontrolled; and are being used as para-military instruments to further the Chavez led revolutionary populism. This could help de-stabilize other countries, particularly those perceived as being pro-American. It is easy to speculate that Correa may also follow Chavez’s closeness with Middle East rogue states such as Iran and Islamic terrorist groups.

In other words, the developments in the Andean region should be of great concern to actual and potential American decision makers. Thinking about the worst case scenario is always realistic when Hugo Chavez has such dominance in the region.

Dr. Luis Fleischman is an advisor to the Menges Hemispheric Security Project at the Center for Security Policy in Washington Dc. He is also an adjunct professor of Political Science and Sociology at Wilkes Honor College at Florida Atlantic University.

Elections in Ecuador

by Luis Fleischman

On November 26, a run-off election will take place in Ecuador that will determine who the next President of Ecuador is going to be. The two contenders are Alvaro Noboa and Rafael Correa. Mr. Noboa, a businessman and entrepreneur won almost 27% of the votes whereas Rafael Correa, a former Minister of Economy and PhD from the University of Illinois won almost 23% of the electorate.

Mr. Noboa supports free trade and strong relations with the United States. Mr. Correa is more of a populist, is very critical of the Ecuadorian political system, its parties and politicians, and he supports closer relations with Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez. Mr. Correa spent a great part of his campaign targeting “enemies” which of course included the rule of the parties (partidocracy), the Ecuadorian oligarchy and the United States. Most importantly, he talked about following the model of Venezuela and Bolivia as far as creating a constituent assembly aimed at changing the nature of Ecuador’s political institutions. As we know in Venezuela, the creation of a constituent assembly led to an increasing authoritarian system where more and more power was delegated from the legislative to the executive power. The party system was virtually decimated in favor of a direct relationship between the leader and the masses. The President in Venezuela now represents the “general will” of the people and, therefore, Chavez’s will is equal to the people’s will even if such will is imaginary.

To further analyze this point, it is important to understand that along with Presidential elections Ecuador was also holding Congressional elections. Mr. Correa’s party (ALIANZA PAIS) contrary to Noboa’s party (PRAN) and the rest of the parties did not present candidates for Congress. Mr. Correa’s party is a political movement detached from a structure and sees political elections only as means to gain votes, to establish him in power and later rule without the parliamentary-party system. It is against this background that Correa’s support for a constituent assembly will serve his purpose. The assembly will determine the elimination of party plurality in favor of the almighty political leader. As soon as he comes to power Mr. Correa will proceed to dismantle political pluralism in Ecuador and will move in the direction set by Hugo Chavez.

Perhaps, we can explore some of these points by looking at Mr. Correa’s style. Even though he has been educated in Belgium and the United States, this should not serve as a criterion to judge him. He refuses to call the Colombian Revolutionary Armed Forces (FARC) a terrorist group, and he opposes the “Plan Colombia” aimed at eradicating drug trafficking and guerilla activity. Thus, he opposes allowing the United States to use the military base at Manta, an agreement between the US and Ecuador that was negotiated in order to control drug trafficking in the region.

At the end of the first round of elections on October 15, Correa declared there was fraud. He seemed to be following the example of Manuel Lopez Obrador of Mexico and was an attempt to de-legitimize the system and create an alternative power. He is no longer pursuing this route now because he still sees some hope in the second round. After Hugo Chavez called President George W. Bush, the “devil” at the United Nations General Assembly this September, Mr. Correa stated that Chavez’s words were an insult to the “devil”.

When he was Minister of Finance during a brief period early in the administration of the current president, Alfredo Palacios, he supported the idea of increasing monetary spending on social projects by not paying the foreign debt. Correa already said he will pursue this policy again.

What are Correa’s chances in the second round of elections?

Correa, like former President Lucio Gutierrez in the year 2002, has good chances to win the newly mobilized poor. Correa has strong relations with the indigenous movements and parties and even though they received only 2.5% of the vote they have a lot of local support. The more moderate social-democratic party (ID) that won almost 15% of the votes in the first round already offered support for Correa. However, Correa’s Chavismo may turn away others.

For Noboa, it will be a little more difficult for him to connect with the poor given his position as being, perhaps, the wealthiest man in Ecuador. This factor is important given the new mobilization of groups such as the indigenous ones that were previously politically passive or excluded. Yet, he still has a chance to make this connection. Noboa’s tremendous wealth enabled him to give out medicines, computers and other services to the poorest sectors. He promised to build affordable housing and he also spoke about the importance of keeping foreign investments, particularly the Spanish ones, because he rightly believes that they can be a source of employment.

Noboa so far has received ample support from the Social Christian party (PSC) that won almost 10% of the vote in the first round. Interestingly enough Gilmar Gutierrez and his party Sociedad Patriotica won 17% of the vote. Gutierrez received support from the humblest sectors as well. Curiously enough Mr. Gutierrez is the brother of the former president Lucio Gutierrez, who was deposed by Congress in April 2005 after mass demonstrations. Rafael Correa is identified as one of those who conspired against President Gutierrez. Given that there is a good chance that Gilmar Gutierrez may endorse Noboa. This could help Noboa win the election.

Noboa will have to present assurances of inclusion and stress the values of democracy. Liberty and economic freedom are great ideas but in Latin America these concepts have lost weight. Social justice and equality represent higher value in current Latin America. The question is if Noboa could use the idea of democracy and freedom as a way to promote dialogue, inclusion, and legality. Democracy and dialogue should provide ways to include poor groups looking for a voice in the national arena. Democracy and legality could appeal to the Social Democrat voters despite their leader’s endorsement of Correa. The Correa-Chavez model of social justice above democracy, liberty and law will lead to destruction of pluralism because it is the leader that claims to represent people’s needs without consulting them. Warning against a Chavista regime type of regime and warning of the dangers of a constituent assembly is important but Noboa may have to move beyond this.

Noboa may think about inclusive economic policies but he should consider saying something critical of the current system and about the current rampant corruption. The fact is that the political parties and politicians have been involved in serious acts of corruption. Also the Supreme Court has been manipulated and politicized by previous governments. If Noboa does not address these needs for change that Ecuador requires, it will be Correa who will hijack this momentum and he will do so by following the Chavez model which is a proscription for populist authoritarianism.

In terms of international and regional politics, a victory for Correa will most likely bring another ally to Hugo Chavez, which implies more radicalization of the region, more allies for Iran, more apologists for terrorism and consequently a more dangerous Western Hemisphere.

Snatching defeat?

Decision Brief                        No. 06-D 53                                          2006-10-16


(Washington, D.C.): America’s preoccupation with the crises du jour – the rising terrorist menace to the liberation of Iraq, the Iranian regime’s determination to acquire the means to act on its genocidal threats against Israel and the United States and, most recently, North Korea’s nuclear coming-out party – has left Washington ill-prepared to deal with one of tomorrow’s major security challenges: the rise of the radical anti-American left in Latin America.

Losing Latin America

The emergence of Venezuelan president Hugo Chavez as the oil-rich heir to Fidel Castro‘s revolutionary ambitions has translated into a mortal threat to liberal democracy, freedom and economic opportunity in much of the hemisphere. With Chavez’s money and Castro’s coaching, the two have adapted the longstanding Cuban revolutionary program of violent overthrow of elected governments to meet present circumstances. Today, virulent leftists are seeking, and frequently succeeding at, obtaining power through the ballot box – then using it to destroy their government’s constitutional processes and any checks on that power.

The United States government has paid scant attention as Bolivia and Argentina have moved squarely into the Chavez-Castro orbit. A similar disastrous outcome was narrowly averted in Peru but may well be in the offing at this writing in Ecuador.

The region’s largest country, Brazil, is in the hands of a long-time Castro ally, Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva. Despite his differences with Chavez and generally moderate approach to economic policy, Lula can be expected to make renewed common cause with the leftist agenda if he is reelected on October 29.

Particularly appalling, the region’s Axis of Evil is poised, all other things being equal, to return Nicaragua – the country Ronald Reagan did so much to help free from the Sandinistas’ communist rule – to the tender mercies of their long-time authoritarian comandante, Daniel Ortega.

The (Unexpected) Return of Mexico’s Left

Washington’s inattention may also encourage the most strategically important reversal sustained to date by the Chavez-Castro axis to be substantially undone. Despite its concerted and well-heeled efforts to ensure the election as president of Mexico of an ideological soul-mate, Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador, the results of a remarkably clean election gave the victory to a pro-American conservative, Felipe Calderon. There is, as a result, an unprecedented opportunity for constructive relations between the U.S. and Mexican governments.

Unfortunately, this opportunity – with all it portends for economic prosperity, sensible immigration policies and a common front against the hemisphere’s radical Left – could be squandered if Mr. Calderon yields to pressure to make the same mistake as his predecessor, Vicente Fox. That will be the effect if the new president of Mexico restores to office Mr. Fox’s first Foreign Minister, Jorge Castaneda.

As a new analysis by Fredo Arias-King just released by the Center for Security Policy makes clear, Castaneda and his team (including such figures as Mexico’s former consul in New York, Arturo Sarukhan, Castaneda’s controversial half-brother Andres Rozental and Ricardo Pascoe, former Mexican ambassador to Cuba) are themselves radical leftists who did grave harm to U.S.-Mexico relations the last time around – and will surely do so again if given the chance.

For example, they were instrumental in withdrawing Mexico from the decades-old mutual defense pact known as the Treaty of Rio, a decision announced ironically just days before the 9/11 attacks in 2001. They seemed determined to find occasions to work at cross-purposes with the United States – notably, in connection with our effort to hold Saddam Hussein accountable to various Security Council resolutions.

Most troubling, however, was the Castaneda cabal’s efforts to convert the initially pro-U.S. Fox and his government into friends of the hard left throughout Latin America. Castaneda personally engineered closer ties to the Castro apparatus in Cuba, encouraged the narco-terrorist FARC in Colombia and strove to rehabilitate Danny Ortega and his Sandinista Party in Nicaragua. It is not hard to assign responsibility for these initiatives since they were abandoned immediately after Castaneda left the foreign ministry.

As a result not only of their ideological bent but their incompetence, Castaneda and his team blew the opportunity afforded when the newly inaugurated George Bush assigned top priority to what he called a “special relationship” with Mexico and traveled there as his symbolic first trip abroad. Mexico dropped in the priority list for Washington, even before 9/11, and has never recovered since.

The Bottom Line

The possibility that the likes of Jorge Castaneda might return to power is especially dangerous for both Mexico and the United States at a moment when Ortega may triumph over a divided democratic-right in Nicaragua and the Chavez-Castro axis is making inroads in so many other places. Under Castaneda or his cabal, it is unimaginable that the Mexican government would play the constructive role it might otherwise perform in the post-Castro transition in Cuba.

It would be a tragedy if, at this critical juncture – and despite the preferences a majority of Mexicans expressed at the ballot box, Felipe Calderon were to squander the chance for Mexico to serve as a bulwark against the combined dangers of Chavismo and Fidelismo and to enjoy a strong, constructive and mutually beneficial relationship with the United States. It is in the interests of both of our countries that President Calderon’s vision of a freedom-loving and -supporting Mexico be represented at the Foreign Ministry, not that of Hugo Chavez, Fidel Castro and Jorge Castaneda.

Castañeda’s Legacy for U.S.-Mexico Relations

by Fredo Arias-King

Two years into Jorge Castañeda’s tenure as Mexico’s foreign secretary, I wrote a paper for the Hudson Institute which was circulated privately among some officials in the Bush administration and others in Washingtoninterested in an alternative point of view and lesser-known facts about Castañeda. As is known, most of the U.S. mainstream media, academics and members of the Democratic Party admire Castañeda and portray him in largely a positive light, though some Republican officials mostly associate him with his long history of anti-American agitation.

Though the presidency of Vicente Fox was largely perceived as a disappointment,[i] with few tangible results in both domestic and foreign policies, there are reports in the Mexican press that president-elect Felipe Calderón may reassign Castañeda to the top diplomatic post or another Cabinet-level position. In light of this, the old 2002 paper has been updated here as it may be of interest to those following not only Mexican politics and U.S.-Mexico relations, but also Hemispheric security issues.

 

Background

Mexico’s election in July of 2000 ended 71 years of a one-party dictatorship. Countries in transition also tend to redefine their foreign policies, often dramatically, and Mexico was no exception. The new president, Vicente Fox, of the pro-democracy and pro-economic freedom National Action Party (PAN), surprised some by appointing a former communist with a long history of virulent anti-Americanism to the post of foreign minister, Jorge G. Castañeda, who served in that office until his resignation in January of 2003.

At the time of his appointment in late 2000, there was a view in Washington circles that Castañeda continued to harbor anti-American feelings and would strive to create problems for the United States. Others argued that his conversion to democracy, as with his fellow communists in Eastern Europe, was genuine and he represented no threat to theUnited Statesor its interests. An example of the former could be found in a memorandum written shortly after Fox’s election victory by a then-staffer to Senator Jesse Helms who was soon-to-become the Assistant Secretary of State for Hemispheric Affairs Roger Noriega.  Unlike most of official Washington, Noriega had openly sympathized with Vicente Fox and the PAN but felt constrained to raise concerns about the future of the bilateral relationship under Castañeda’s influence:

U.S.-Mexico relations—which already are on a stable, institutionalized footing—should improve systematically with Fox’s victory. However, this opportunity may be squandered because Fox has designated two leftist intellectuals with distinctly anti-U.S. instincts to manage his international relations.

U.S. observers who hoped that a Fox victory promised warmer relations with the United States and that foreign affairs would no longer be the “sandbox” for Mexico’s left will be disappointed by Fox’s choice of two anti-U.S. archetypes to lay the foundations of his foreign policy. Fox has designated intellectual and writer Jorge G. Castañeda and independent Senator Adolfo Aguilar Zinser to head his foreign relations transition. Both are relentless critics ofU.S.foreign policy.

This paper is based on Castañeda’s original writings and his conduct as foreign minister.  It is also informed by the opinions Castañeda expressed to candidate Vicente Fox and other campaign officials between early 1999 and July of 2000. This author, along with the PAN’s director for international relations, Dr. Carlos Salazar, had broad responsibility for relations withWashingtonin the Fox campaign between March of 1999 and July of 2000, working both out of the PAN as well as the Fox campaign headquarters. Visiting the United States 17 times during the campaign and also being exposed to Castañeda at campaign headquarters gives this essay perhaps a unique perspective.

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

Prevent Venezuela from joining Security Council

By Luis Fleischman

(Washington, D.C.): On October 16, a secret ballot of the United Nations General Assembly will decide who will be elected for the Latin American seat at the UN Security Council left vacant by Argentina. If no country wins two-thirds of the vote — 128 out of 192 — the Assembly votes again, until one country wins the necessary majority.

The two leading contenders are Venezuela and Guatemala, even though there are now talks regarding the possible candidacy of Uruguay for the seat instead of Venezuela.

Venezuela has put a lot of effort into winning this seat. Among those supporting Venezuela are the 22 members of the Arab League, the countries of the Southern Common market Mercosur including Brazil, Argentina, Uruguay and Paraguay. Bolivia, Cuba and the Caribbean Community 13 country trade bloc known as CARICOM. Russia and China have announced that they will also support Venezuela. Iran, of course, is a strong supporter of Venezuela. Opposed to Venezuela are Mexico, Nicaragua, Honduras, El Salvador, Costa Rica, Colombia, the Dominican Republic and Puerto Rico. Most European countries seem to be backing Guatemala while Asia and Africa are divided. In Latin America Chile, Haiti and Peru remain undecided.

Even though Venezuela is a country led by a radical and delirious dictator, it has amassed great support. This is the effective result of a world campaign which included more than a mere public relations strategy. Venezuela has been offering subsidized oil to countries in the Caribbean, buying foreign debt bonds (Argentina) and offering financial assistance to far away countries in Asia and Africa.

Why should the world oppose Venezuela’s seat on the UN Security Council since it would be temporary?

There are a number of reasons why it is imperative to oppose Venezuela’s bid to be on the Security Council. Venezuela proclaims a strong anti-Americanism, and, at the same time tries, to counterbalance US power in the world and particularly in Latin America. In the course of that action Venezuela’s leader Hugo Chavez makes alliances with rogue and dangerous states such as Iran and Syria, tries to politically de-stabilize regimes in Latin America such as Peru, Mexico and Ecuador; actively supports radical guerilla and terrorist groups such as FARC and has declared open support for Hezbollah. As a matter of moral principle this should be unacceptable in an era characterized by a global war against terrorism and the danger of nuclear weapons falling in the hands of unscrupulous states and organizations. Appointing Venezuela to the Council would be the wrong message to the world community and a big defeat for the enlightened nations of the West.

By the same token and in more formal terms, Venezuela occupying a seat in the Security Council is nothing but a reversal of the reforms promoted by the US and European countries in the world body.

Nothing has reflected more the moral bankruptcy of the world body than the third world and the former communist block’s concept that social justice and social equality stood as supreme values above what is morally acceptable or human rights, properly speaking. Thus, membership of rogue states and ruthless dictatorships on the Security Council and on the Human Rights commissions has been routine throughout the history of the United Nations. This moral relativism has ultimately helped legitimize terrorism and other forms of political violence.

Thus, for example, Yasser Arafat was welcomed in the UN in 1974 at the peak of the most vicious massacres of civilians and children carried out by the PLO. The idea that attacking those perceived as being strong and powerful is acceptable regardless of human casualties or cruelty. This spirit was for years supported not only by the Soviet Union and the third world but often directly or indirectly by a French-led European community motivated mostly by dependency on the third world raw materials (mostly Arab oil) and its Gaullist dream of counterbalancing American power in the West. All this together explains the reason why this spirit prevailed despite the disappearance of the Soviet Union as a world power. There is no doubt in my mind that Osama Bin Laden counted on the support of this world attitude and the ambiguity of the world community before perpetrating the 9/11 attacks in order to win the public relations battle.

However, things have taken a different turn lately. The events of 9/11 were followed by terrorist attacks in the railways of Spain in March 2004 and attacks in Great Britain in July 2005. This has had some impact on Western European attitudes, particularly France. Despite the highly unpopular war in Iraq among European nations, Europe was willing to take an active role in the US initiative to stop Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons, most notably France that only in 2003 was at the forefront of anti-American opposition. This is concurrent with the plan initiated and promoted by the Bush Administration to reform the highly shady United Nations.

Thus, the appointment of Venezuela to fill the Security Council seat would be a political and moral reversal. Venezuela is a country that has openly supported everything the western world stands against. Chavez’s concern for the Latin American poor and other "acts of compassion" should not blur the fact that the man is a regional conspirator and an ally of rogue states. If the world community provides a Security Council seat to Venezuela it would provide him with a platform to be a strong advocate of Iran and international terrorism. This would be a defeat not only for the US but also for the western hemisphere as a whole. Voting for Chavez is against the spirit of reform and moral improvement promoted by the United States and other Western countries. The fact that Europeans are not voting for Venezuela is encouraging but they must also apply their influence to convince Latin American countries, who themselves have a third very good reason to defeat Chavez: the stability of their still fragile and young democracies.

The US and its European allies must convince Latin American countries that the short-term benefits deriving from the relation with Venezuela should not interfere with the long-term stability of the region. Latin American countries must be reminded that Venezuela is a highly de-stabilizing force that has and can turn against democratically elected regimes in Latin America, as Hugo Chavez has already done in Peru, Mexico and Ecuador. It would be difficult to convince Argentina since Chavez, by buying foreign debt bonds from Argentina and providing other trade benefits, has enabled the Argentinean government to restore some of the reserves lost as the result of the payment of the foreign debt to the International Monetary Fund. However, Brazil is by far stronger and less dependent on Venezuela. Chavez incited Bolivia to nationalize Brazilian owned companies (Petro-Bras). Brazil, being the largest, most powerful and oil-independent country in Latin America has no reason to support Venezuela except for President Lula’s socialist affinity with Venezuela and solidarity with another member of Mercosur. Chile, under President Michelle Bachelet’s leadership, has for a long time shied away from the assertiveness of its predecessors and become apologetic of Latin American populisms. Chavez endorsed Bachelet when she ran for election. In return, Bachelet in early September, stated that to "vote against Chavez is to vote against the region". However, later the same month Venezuela and Chile confronted each other amid declarations by the Venezuelan Ambassador in Santiago accusing the Chilean Christian Democratic Party of having supported the coup against Chavez in April 2002 and the Pinochet coup against Allende in 1973. Bachelet declared that the Ambassador’s statements are "unacceptable" and represent interference in Chile’s internal affairs. Now the government of Chile is again considering whether it will vote for Chavez or not. This is a perfect time for American and western diplomats to persuade Chile to vote against Venezuela.

Chile has not only been an ally of the US but also one of the most economically successful countries in Latin America. Chile, like Brazil, does not depend on Venezuela. The US must convince Chile that the relationship with the US is important and that Chile’s position may be weakened by siding with somebody like Chavez. Furthermore, Chavez is not a regional leader but, as he has demonstrated, his authoritarian instincts may turn against an ally at the moment Chavez is displeased with certain policies carried out by a regional country. The same principle applies to Argentina and other countries. However, the stubborn personality of the Argentinean president does not allow for dialogue, at least for the time being. Furthermore, Argentina was a bankrupt country and Chavez’s help was badly needed. However, Chile is different. Chile is successful and it should not budge by showing weakness. Chile, like Brazil must be persuaded to oppose Venezuela. It goes without saying that Peru suffered direct interference by Chavez in its domestic politics. Chavez criticized the current President of Peru, Alan Garcia, during the election by confronting him and publicly supporting the pan-indigenous, ultra-nationalist Ollanta Humala.

In sum, it is imperative that US and European diplomats continue an aggressive diplomacy and give priority to the goal of defeating Chavez’s bid to the Security Council. World principles and world stability are at stake.

Venezuela arms embargo should be part of Bush Doct

Decision Brief                                       No. 06-D 26                     2006-05-17


(Washington , D.C.): The new U.S. arms embargo against the extremist regime in Venezuela should have implications beyond South America . Though intended to protect democracies in the region, the embargo should be used to convince our allies that there is a price to be paid for actions that willfully undermine American security interests.


The Miami Herald reports that President Bush’s embargo is “largely symbolic” because Venezuelan dictator Hugo Chavez “has been buying the bulk of his weapons, including attack and transport helicopters, patrol boats and military transport planes, from Russia and Spain.”


Bush Doctrine Created Stark Choice for Our Allies


The post-9/11 Bush Doctrine created a stark choice for nations to either side with us or against us in the global war on terror. This hard line has given way to a new reality where some of our allies simply take for granted that we will ignore their efforts against us. For example, France and Germany undermined U.S. efforts to compel action by the United Nations against Saddam Hussein, yet they continue to benefit from our military presence in Europe . They also profit from U.S. purchases of their military products. As the war proceeds, the United States should consider how it can make its policies more consistent.


The most practical approach is to stop purchasing military equipment from countries that disregard our security interests, at least whenever viable alternatives are available. No country should be more concerned about this possibility than Spain , a once-loyal partner in the war on terror that now prefers to thumb its nose at the U.S. while lobbying Congress and the U.S. military to buy its products.


Spain decided to cool its warm relations with the United States after the al Qaeda bombings of the Madrid transit system propelled Socialist Workers Party President Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero to power in March, 2004.


In fact, Spain has defied U.S. interests in spectacular fashion – and in a way that demands a response . Last November, Spain sold 12 of its CASA C-235 and C-295 military transport aircraft to Venezuela , despite strong U.S. objections. Because the aircraft includes American-made technology, the Bush Administration tried to halt the sale under the 1992 International Trade in Arms Regulations (ITAR). Instead, Spain replaced U.S. components in the aircraft and has made a very public spectacle of the sale ever since – even taking part in the Venezuelan dictator’s propaganda campaign against the United States.


Even before making good on his campaign promise to pull his country from the international coalition in Iraq , Spain ‘s socialist president traveled to Caracas to negotiate the sale personally with the Venezuelan dictator. He later dispatched Defense Minister Jose Bono to Caracas on November 28, 2005 to seal the deal with Chavez, despite U.S. objections that the trip would legitimize the Chavez regime’s anti-U.S. rhetoric.


Spain dismissed U.S. concerns. Spanish Foreign Affairs Minister Miguel Angel Moratinos told his nation’s largest newspaper on November 27 that the deal would not cause problems for Spain in the U.S. This was in spite of a report four days earlier in the same paper that “Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez wants Spanish Defense Minister Jose Bono to personally sign the deals in Caracas to stress what he described as a ‘defeat’ of the United States.” The foreign minister’s comments were despite warnings from Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld just three days earlier that Spain was “making a mistake” over the sale to Venezuela.


To make matters worse, the Spanish defense minister used his appearance in Venezuela to denounce the U.S. as an “empire,” while Chavez used the occasion to characterize Spain’s decision as “confronting the hegemonic and imperialist ambitions of the elite that now governs the United States,” and which is “massacring the people of Iraq.”


Part of Campaign to Undermine the U.S. and Its Allies


To reinforce his point that the deal with Spain was intended to insult the U.S., Chavez forced an American congressional delegation led by 81 year-old House International Relations Committee Chairman Henry Hyde (R-IL) and his ranking colleague, Rep. Tom Lantos (D-CA) to sit on the Caracas airport tarmac for two hours while the deal with Spain was sealed, and then forced the delegation to leave the country. It reeked of a setup job.


The U.S. also specifically warned Spain that its deal was part of the Venezuelan dictator’s strategy to undermine U.S. interests and destabilize the region, including by coordinating actions with Cuba and supporting leftist FARC rebels that hope to overthrow the Columbian government. Chavez himself has proclaimed that his “new strategic map” is intended to “break apart” the South American democratic countries. In fact, when Spain told the U.S. that its CASA aircraft would be used in Venezuela for humanitarian purposes only, Chavez told the European media the aircraft will be used “mainly” for humanitarian purposes, and that they would be used both “inside and outside the country.”


Spain was also aware that Chavez was scheduled to take possession from Russia of 30,000 Kalashnikov assault rifles just days after signing the CASA aircraft deal. Spain ignored Colombian and U.S. concerns that the guns are of the same type used by FARC, and that the total order of 100,000 rifles is far more than is needed to arm every Venezuelan soldier. In response to U.S. concerns, the Spanish defense minister told the media he was “not willing to recognize that there are chosen people who are above others.”


Spreading Anti-U.S. Propaganda while Competing for U.S. Tax Dollars


As if spreading anti-U.S. propaganda abroad wasn’t bad enough, Spain has been working in Washington to get the Coast Guard and Pentagon to buy the same planes it was selling Chavez.


Last year, CASA got Congress to earmark funds for two C-235 aircraft to be used by the Coast Guard’s Deepwater program. CASA is now pressing for even more Deepwater funds, and has established a new campaign to supply up to 35 C-295s to the U.S. Army and Air Force Joint Cargo Aircraft (JCA) program.


Congress authorized start-up funding for the JCA program in 2005, and must eventually fund additional transport aircraft for the Coast Guard Deepwater program. The programs combined will be worth $3-4 billion in the next two years, and as much as $30-40 billion over the next decade. It would be appropriate for the U.S. to make sure that Spain ‘s decision to earn $1 billion from Venezuela for its CASA aircraft should come at the cost of earning far more from sales in the U.S.


The Bottom Line


The U.S. is accustomed to the self-serving actions of some of our friends abroad. But there is growing resentment among American taxpayers when they are asked to pay for products from companies of countries that actively undermine U.S. interests. The Bush Administration has made it clear that we have compelling interests in stopping the arms build-up in Venezuela. Congress should step in to make sure that our allies understand the message. When it comes to buying planes from supposed allies like Spain, Congress should just say no.


 

What to do about Venezuela

What to Do About Venezuela

By J. Michael Waller

Introduction

Among the more troubling legacies Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice has inherited is one of neglect towards the Western Hemisphere, a legacy that has seriously diminished the United States’ stature and influence in most of the Americas.  This is due, in part, to the self-imposed abdication of the Nation’s hemispheric security obligations.  Secretary Rice has signaled by her recent trip to the region and a major address on the subject delivered today that she intends to address the problem – and not a moment too soon.

Today, Washington’s friends in Latin America stand isolated, disillusioned, and bewildered.  At the same time, the foes of freedom are advancing their objectives in our hemisphere with an effectiveness unseen since the presidency of Jimmy Carter in the 1970s. Lack of a coherent U.S. strategy toward the region since the end of the Cold War, no less so since 2001, has allowed other actors to enter and dominate the scene.

These actors range from old, obsessed figures like Cuban dictator Fidel Castro and warmed-over ’70s terrorists-turned-politicians like Nicaragua’s Daniel Ortega, to Carter himself, whose continued international work certifying election results has provided essential political cover to anti-democratic forces in the region.  Indeed, it might be said that over the past four years, Jimmy Carter has been the most visible and arguably most influential U.S. leader in Latin America.

Nowhere is the lack of a U.S. strategic approach to the Western Hemisphere more evident than in the unchecked rise of a self-absorbed, unstable strongman in Venezuela, Hugo Chavez, who has made common cause with terrorists and the regimes that support them, and has developed a revolutionary ideology that has begun to plunge the Americas again into violence and chaos. It is necessary for the democratic nations of the hemisphere to come together and stop this rising threat to peace before it is too late.

 

 

_____________________

J. Michael Waller, Ph.D., is the Center for Security Policy’s Vice President for Information Operations.

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Hemispheric insecurity

(Washington, D.C.): Democratic Congressman Charles Rangel was absolutely furious over the weekend. The ostensible reason for his rage was the Bush Administration’s refusal to intervene in Haiti’s latest crisis until after its corrupt, despotic ruler, Jean-Bertrand Aristide, was removed from power.

Why the Rage?

To be sure, Rep. Rangel and his colleagues in the Congressional Black Caucus have been the most steadfast of ex-President Aristide’s supporters. They and like-minded members of the Clinton Administration were, in no small measure, responsible for the 1994 U.S. power-play that forcibly restored Aristide to the post to which he had been elected.

The anger being expressed by Rangel and Company seems curiously misplaced, however. Their man in Haiti proved to be everything that critics of the Clinton putsch had said he was: brutally thuggish, irremediably corrupt and mentally and behaviorally erratic. In fact, it was Aristide’s subsequent tyrannical misconduct, and not a lack of American political and financial support, that was most responsible for his country’s current slide into anarchy and despair – behavior that dissipated Aristide’s once considerable popular support in Haiti and contributed to his swift overthrow.

By refusing to prop up Aristide, President Bush has given Haiti what it was denied when Bill Clinton engaged in the sort of “nation-building” that gave the process a bad name: a chance to establish the institutions essential to representative, accountable governance. Rather than repeating the earlier mistake of investing (in the form of well-over a billion in U.S. tax dollars) in one man – without regard to his anti-democratic track record – on the grounds that he won a vote, the United States must now invest the energy and resources needed to promote institutionalized checks-and-balances that alone can protect against future misrule by his successor.

It Isn’t ‘the Economy, Stupid’

Rep. Rangel may be angry for one other reason, however. The crisis in Haiti is a sobering reminder of a larger point he and other Democrats seem to hope American voters will miss this November: The world is a turbulent, disorderly and increasingly dangerous place for U.S. interests.

At a time when the clear hope in Democratic circles is that the electorate will focus once again exclusively on “the economy, stupid,” it is inconvenient, to put it mildly, to have still more foreign entanglements developing – especially in our back yard. The fact that this particular problem in Haiti was unmistakably a legacy of the misspent Clinton years simply underscores the foolishness of engaging in such myopia once again.

Worse yet, Haiti is hardly the only indication that things are going seriously south south of our border. Consider the following sampler:

  • In Venezuela, another elected autocrat, Hugo Chavez, is turning his oil-rich nation into an engine for regional instability and anti-American policies. Schooled and abetted by Fidel Castro, whose Cuban dictatorship Chavez unabashedly admires and props up, the Venezuelan despot is resorting increasingly to coercion and even force to suppress mounting popular opposition. Having strung out legal efforts to remove him from power, he now appears determined to prevent them from going forward at all – raising the distinct possibility of bloodshed and mayhem in a country that supplies much of the United States’ imported oil.
  • Unfortunately, Chavez has a soul-mate and willing partner not only in Castro but in Brazil’s Luiz Incio Lula da Silva (universally known as Lula). Brazil’s Lula has been assiduously courting terrorist groups (reportedly, Colombia’s FARC and Peru’s Shining Path) and regimes that sponsor terror (notably, those of North Korea, Libya, Syria, Iran and the Palestinian Authority). Not coincidentally, the so-called “Triborder Area” – where Brazil, Argentina and Paraguay meet – has become a breeding ground for Islamist terrorists seeking safe havens from which to recruit, train and launch operatives on destructive missions elsewhere in the Western Hemisphere.
  • With materiel and political life-support from Venezuela’s Chavez and Brazil’s Lula, Castro has gotten a new lease on life. His repression at home has intensified and his efforts to export subversion to the mainland have resumed in earnest.
  • The hemisphere’s anti-American axis is working assiduously to develop and exploit targets of opportunity for their destabilization campaign in Colombia and Peru. Pro-axis regimes have already taken power in Argentina, Ecuador, and Bolivia. Curiously, there was no perceptible outcry from Democratic circles when Bolivia’s elected president was forced from power by Andean-Indian political movements enjoying the strong support of Chavez and his ilk.
  • This turmoil is offering opportunities for penetration of our backyard not only by Islamists and their Mideastern sponsors. The future prospect for genuine and pro-Western democracies in this hemisphere are being further clouded by Chinese political, economic and strategic inroads being made from the Panama Canal to Brazil.

    • The Bottom Line

    One thing is certain: The next President of the United States is going to confront trouble south of our border – trouble that will probably make the present turmoil in Haiti pale by comparison. It will take a great and visionary Commander-in-Chief to contend with the myriad implications of such trouble if, as seems entirely possible, it emerges as the next and most proximate front in the war on terror.

    It will be a grave disservice to the voters if these unpleasant facts are concealed from them. The electorate will be even worse served, however, if they are not made fully aware of two others: One of the candidates for Commander-in-Chief, John Kerry, was a preeminent opponent of efforts to counter Latin America’s last generation of anti-U.S. leftists. And he routinely voted to cut our defense capabilities and force structure in ways that would have left us still less prepared to deal with the next one.